`[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5631-S5642]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              CYBERSECURITY ACT OF 2012--MOTION TO PROCEED


                   Recognition of the Majority Leader

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader is recognized.


                                Schedule

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are on the motion to proceed to S. 3414, 
which is the cybersecurity bill. This is postcloture. At 4:30 p.m., the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to vote on the nomination of 
Robert Bacharach, of Oklahoma, to be a U.S. circuit judge for the Tenth 
Circuit. This likely will be our last vote on a circuit judge for this 
Congress. I hope we can be successful. This is a person whom I will 
talk about a little bit, and he is certainly well qualified. He came 
out of committee unanimously.
  At 5:30 p.m., today, there will be a cloture vote on the Bacharach 
nomination. If cloture is not invoked on the Bacharach nomination, the 
Senate will resume legislative session and begin consideration of the 
cybersecurity bill following the vote.


               Measure Placed on the Calendar--H.R. 6082

  I am told H.R. 6082 is at the desk and due for a second reading.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report the bill by 
title.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 6082) to officially replace, within the 60-day 
     Congressional review period under the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act, President Obama's Proposed Final Outer Continental 
     Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program (2012-2017) with a 
     congressional plan that will conduct additional oil and 
     natural gas lease sales to promote offshore energy 
     development, job creation, and increased domestic energy 
     production to ensure a more secure energy future in the 
     United States, and for other purposes.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I object to any further proceedings with 
regard to this bill.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard. The bill will 
be placed on the calendar.


                          Middle-Class Tax Cut

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was glad to hear Speaker Boehner say last 
week he will bring the Senate-passed middle-class tax cut to the House 
floor for a vote. I heard again today he is going to hold to what he 
said. I think that is very good.
  Our struggling Nation is one vote away from avoiding the fiscal cliff 
for middle-class families. Every Member of the House of Representatives 
should have an opportunity to show where they stand: with millionaires 
or the middle class. Members can support the Democrats' plan to cut 
taxes for 98 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit by almost 
$1 trillion or they can support the Republican plan to hand out more 
tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires, increasing taxes for 25 
million American families struggling to put kids through college or 
even food on the table.
  The two approaches demonstrate a glaring difference in priorities. 
There is another difference between the two plans. The Democrats' 
proposal is the only one with a chance of becoming law. President Obama 
said he would sign it tomorrow. What he will not do is sign into law 
any more wasteful giveaways to the wealthiest 2 percent.
  The Senate has defeated the Republican proposal in a bipartisan vote, 
so it is simply a waste of time for House Republicans to continue to 
pursue their middle-class tax hike. House Republicans should stop 
holding the middle class hostage to extract more tax cuts for the 
richest of the rich. They

[[Page S5632]]

should pass our middle-class tax cut now. American families cannot 
afford to wait until the last moment to find out how their bottom line 
will look come January 1. People are sitting around their kitchen 
tables now trying to figure out whether they can afford to buy a home 
or rent a home, should they send their kids to college or trade school 
or should they or can they retire? Republicans shouldn't force 114 
million families to guess whether they will have $1,600 less to spend 
or save next year. They certainly need to do something and do it now, 
and one simple vote can give them that certainty.
  Mr. President, cybersecurity is basically a new word. Today, the 
Senate also continues to work to address this problem. This is a 
problem that national security experts call the most urgent threat to 
our country; that is, weakness in our defense against cybersecurity. 
Cyber terrorism could cripple the computer networks that control our 
electrical grid, water supplies, sewers, nuclear plants, energy 
pipelines, transportation networks, communications equipment, and 
financial systems, to name a few. GEN Martin Dempsey, chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, said: ``A cyber attack could stop this society 
in its tracks.'' Cyber espionage does not just threaten our national 
security, it threatens our economic security as well. Hackers have 
already attacked one of the most important businesses we have in 
America today, the Nasdaq stock exchange. Major corporations are under 
attack every day, spending millions and millions of dollars to protect 
against cyber attacks. These attacks cost our economy billions of 
dollars a year and thousands of jobs.
  GEN James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, said Chinese 
cyber theft of American intellectual property is ``the greatest 
pillaging of wealth in history.''
  ``That's our future disappearing in front of us,'' added GEN Keith 
Alexander, Director of the National Security Administration.
  In a report released last year, the American Chamber of Commerce said 
the government and private sector should work together to develop 
incentives for businesses to voluntarily act to protect our Nation's 
critical infrastructure. The legislation before this body today does 
exactly that. It establishes a public-private partnership to make our 
Nation safer and protect American jobs. I hope the Chamber will join in 
our efforts to pass this important legislation.
  I personally believe this bill could go further to address the 
critical infrastructure, such as the networks operating our electrical 
grid, our water supply, and other life-sustaining systems. It is a 
tremendously important first step.
  I applaud Senators Lieberman, Collins, Feinstein, and Rockefeller for 
their work on this legislation. The bill managers are compiling a list 
of relevant amendments for consideration. I hope we can cooperate to 
work through the list and pass this legislation this week. We can't 
afford to fail to address what experts have called the greatest 
security challenge since the dawn of the nuclear age.


                          Bacharach Nomination

  I said I would talk a little bit about Judge Bacharach, and I intend 
to do that now.
  Today, the Senate will vote on whether to end a filibuster of Judge 
Robert Bacharach, a nominee from Oklahoma to the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals. By any measure, this man is the type of noncontroversial 
nominee the Senate would routinely confirm with broad bipartisan 
support. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice vote. 
Everybody said he is a good guy. He has the support of two Republican 
Senators from his State of Oklahoma. Senator Coburn, the junior Senator 
from Oklahoma, said Friday that Judge Bacharach is a stellar candidate 
and ought to get through.
  Yet Republicans have signaled they are going to block his nomination. 
If they hold up this consensus candidate, it will be the first time an 
appeals court nominee with this bipartisan support has ever been 
filibustered on the floor.
  Why should we ever be surprised? We have already had 85 filibusters, 
so we can add another one to it. I hope they don't filibuster this good 
man. I have already said this would be our last circuit court judge. It 
is too bad that is the case.
  If Senator Coburn and Senator Inhofe broadly support this qualified 
nomination, blatant partisanship will be to blame. Senator Coburn said 
Judge Bacharach is ``an awfully good candidate caught in election-year 
politics.''
  Will the Chair announce the business of the day.


                       Reservation of Leader Time

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
leadership time is reserved.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                            Higher Education

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, 2 years ago, not long after I became 
chairman of the Senate's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee, I made the decision to undertake an investigation of the 
for-profit sector of higher education.
  My reason for doing so was compelling: Congress had just finished 
making huge new investments in the Pell grant program; meanwhile, 
enrollment in for-profit colleges had increased 225 percent over the 
previous 10 years compared to 31 percent for the rest of higher 
education.
  So this is what we were looking at, as shown on this chart. The 
enrollment in the for-profit sector kept going up, and finally, in 
2006, it took a huge increase--up from 765,000 in 2001 to 2.5 million, 
almost, in 2010. So while students at for-profit colleges made up 
between 10 and 13 percent of all the students, for-profit colleges now 
were receiving almost 25 percent of all student loans and Pell grants.
  Meanwhile, troubling reports began to surface: prospective students 
being lied to by aggressive recruiters; other recruiters showing up at 
wounded warrior facilities and homeless shelters; students saddled with 
a mountain of debt, unable to find jobs.
  Two years later, our investigation is complete. The committee has 
held 6 hearings, issued 30 document requests, compiled data from 
multiple agencies, interviewed many former students and employees, and 
compiled a fact-based authoritative public record.
  Earlier today, we announced the release of our final report called 
``For-Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal 
Investment and Ensure Student Success.''
  This report provides a detailed explanation of how Congress has 
failed to properly monitor student outcomes in this sector of higher 
education or to safeguard the enormous investment taxpayers are making.
  As this next chart shows, Pell grants going to the for-profit sector 
have grown from $2.5 billion to $8.8 billion, in just 5 years. Again, 
this is what we are looking at. Just think, that we had to do 
something; and look at this: $2.5 billion, up to $8.8 billion, in 5 
years. These are Pell grants. As I said, about 10 percent of the 
students, 25 percent of all the Pell grants. This was twice as fast as 
anything else in higher education.
  As the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee that funds Pell 
grants, we work very hard to make sure Pell grants keep up, that we 
increase them. So it was distressing and outrageous to learn that a 
disproportionate share of this Federal investment is going to schools 
that are raking in big profits but failing to educate our students.
  I will now put up another chart.
  You have to ask the question: Has the American taxpayer gotten an 
acceptable return on this huge investment in students attending school 
in the for-profit sector? The answer is a resounding no.
  More than half of the students who enrolled in 2008 and 2009 had 
withdrawn by 2010. At many of them, as the chart shows, the withdrawal 
rate was 67 percent, as shown here for Ashford University.
  What this means is, for students who signed up at one of these 
schools and

[[Page S5633]]

got a loan, got a Pell grant, 1 year later 50 percent of them were not 
there. It was as high as 67 percent of students at Bridgepoint, Ashford 
University, who were not there.
  So you say: Well, what happened to the money? Guess what. Bridgepoint 
got the Pell grant. Bridgepoint got the Stafford loan. The student 
dropped out, and the student has the debt.
  The student has the debt, and the student has nothing to show for it: 
no appreciable skill, no diploma, nothing. In fact, they are worse off 
than when they started because now they have a huge debt hanging around 
their neck. I just want to say that in this report, what we will find 
is overwhelming documentation of exorbitant tuition, unsavory 
recruiting practices, abysmal student outcomes, taxpayer dollars spent 
excessively on marketing and pocketed as profits, and regulatory 
evasion--regulatory evasion and manipulation.
  I will have more to say about that later. Again, these practices are 
not the exception, they are the norm. They are systemic throughout the 
industry. There are, of course, individual exceptions. Again, there are 
real differences among the various for-profit colleges. That is why we 
took profiles of 30 different companies. We took 15 that were publicly 
owned, investor owned, and we took 15 that are more private. We took 
some from the biggest to the smallest so we would have a broad picture 
of what was happening in this industry.
  Now, again, compared to the industry overall, some for-profit 
colleges are doing a better job for their students. I would mention 
Strayer, Walden, National American University, and American Public 
University--all private, for-profit schools doing a much better job for 
their students.
  There are also for-profit colleges that have had serious 
shortcomings. But they are beginning to make some changes. They are now 
open to new thinking about how to improve student outcomes. I would 
include in this list Kaplan, DeVry, and Apollo, which is basically the 
University of Phoenix. The bottom line is that a large share of the $32 
billion that taxpayers invested in these schools in 2010 was wasted. We 
cannot allow this to continue.
  Why? Because 73 percent of undergraduate students in this country are 
nontraditional students. For example, they are holding down jobs, they 
are older, perhaps they have family responsibilities, come from maybe 
low-income communities, and they may be the first in their family to 
attend college. Our Nation's existing network of public and not-for-
profit colleges and community colleges cannot meet the demand for 
higher education or meet President Obama's goal of producing more 
college graduates without increasing the number of Americans who spend 
at least some time in higher education. We need for-profit schools to 
offer these students more than a path to enrollment. We need them to 
offer students a path to success and graduation.
  We uncovered two overall problems with the status quo in for-profit 
higher education. One, billions of taxpayer dollars are being diverted 
from the educational activities they were intended to finance; and, 
two, taxpayer dollars are being used to do real lasting harm to the 
students these colleges enroll.
  Again, think about it. In just the 1 year we examined, more than half 
a million students enrolled in for-profit colleges and then quit. 
Almost every one of those dropouts left school worse off than when they 
began, with no tangible economic benefit, but saddled with debt that 
cannot be discharged in bankruptcy, far less able now to continue their 
higher education in the future because they will have defaulted on 
those loans. They will not be able to get Federal loans, and they will 
not get any more Pell grants.
  So we have to ask why is this happening? One of the reasons is that 
the tuition at for-profit colleges is grossly out of line with the cost 
of comparable programs at public and nonprofit institutions and fail to 
reflect the often dubious value of a degree from a for-profit. As this 
chart shows, this is average, from a public college in yellow, and the 
purple is for-profit colleges.
  For an average certificate program, public schools, $4,249--this is 
tuition. At a for-profit, $19,806; for an average associate degree, 2 
years, $8,000 in public schools; that would be our community colleges 
and others, $34,988--almost $35,000 at a for-profit school. For a 
bachelor's degree, $52,000 in public schools; $62,000 in the for-profit 
schools. It costs 20 percent more for an online degree from Ashford 
University than a degree from the University of Michigan.
  Now, since these schools do not have bricks and mortar, they do not 
have to pay heating bills and cooling bills and upkeep of dorms and all 
of that kind of stuff, one would think they could offer these courses 
much cheaper than what they are doing. That is not the case. They are 
much more expensive.
  So why doesn't this lower overhead translate into lower tuition? We 
will put up the next chart. The answer is the efficiencies of online 
education are not passed on to students. Instead, those lower costs of 
delivery go straight to profits, marketing, and executive salaries. 
Tuition is set primarily based on maximizing revenue from Federal 
taxpayer dollars and on what executives think the market will bear.
  That is sort of what this chart shows. This red line is the average 
available Federal aid to a student. This would be Stafford loans and 
Pell grants. This is average, $13,205. When we examined all of the 
private schools--this is just a representative sample--they are all 
just above that line. In fact, we have internal documents from many of 
these schools, from their executives, saying they are going to set 
their tuition in order to make sure they can maximize access to those 
Federal dollars.
  Now, there are exceptions. I wanted to put one in there. American 
Public Institute, as I said earlier, they are way down here. They made 
a profit, they are profitable, and they provide a good service. They 
are not pegging their tuition costs at just what they can maximize. So 
there are examples out there, but the vast majority set it just at what 
the market will bear and how they can maximize their Federal dollars.
  How much are these Federal dollars? About 83 percent. So I think 
another feature of the for-profit schools is their almost total 
reliance on taxpayer money. They say they are for-profit, but it is not 
like a for-profit for a private business that is competing in selling 
cars or washing machines or refrigerators or maybe some other kind of a 
service where one can pick and choose. About 83 percent--this is 
military, 3.8 percent, and 79.3 percent is Federal student aid dollars; 
83 percent comes directly from the taxpayers of this country.
  So if for-profit colleges charge exorbitant tuition and often provide 
an inferior education while experiencing sky-high dropout rates, how 
are they able to recruit a steady stream of new students? The answer is 
that for-profit colleges are what I would call a marketing machine. 
They spend 42.1 percent of their revenues on marketing, recruiting, and 
profit. Yet they only spend 17 percent of revenues on actual 
instruction.

  By comparison, the University of North Carolina System spends less 
than 2 percent of its budget on marketing--2 percent. What we see is 42 
percent--42 percent on marketing and profits; 17 percent on student 
instruction. This is interesting: 40.7 percent all other spending. I 
would point out herein are executive salaries, executive compensation, 
bonuses paid to recruiters, and on and on and on. Only 17 percent for 
instruction.
  Most colleges, when they talk about marketing, it is down around 2 or 
3 percent. I will bet the University of Virginia is probably down 
there. I do not know. We may have that documentation. I know the 
University of Iowa System is down around that 2- to 3-percent total for 
marketing. You have seen their ads, different things for public 
universities, nonprofit universities, but nothing close to 42 percent.
  This is what leads to what we call the ``churn.'' Students come in, 
they get recruited, they get their Pell grants, they get their loans, 
the school gets the money, a year later the student drops out, and so 
the marketers go out and bring in more students. So we get this 
tremendous churn in the student body at these for-profit schools. 
Perhaps most critical, these institutions fail to provide adequate 
student support services, as I said. This is a critical finding of our 
report.

[[Page S5634]]

  Despite knowingly enrolling some of the most at-risk students in our 
country, many of these schools do not provide these students with the 
services common sense tells us they need to succeed. How many times 
have we heard from the for-profit industry: Yes, we are different 
because we are enrolling students who do not go to our normal colleges, 
do not go to the University of Iowa, to the University of Virginia. 
These are nontraditional students. Many of them are poor. That is true, 
but that is who they are recruiting.
  Why are they recruiting them? To get the most Pell grants and the 
most Stafford student loans. That is what the college gets.
  Now, if they are doing that, then they need to provide mentoring, 
tutoring, some kind of alumni network, job partnerships, and genuine 
career counseling. Two of the largest for-profit companies provide no 
career counseling or placement to students whatsoever. Yet these are 
the very students who need the most help when they go to college. 
Students from upper income families who go to good schools, they do not 
need that. English language learners, Latinos, African-American 
students, those we intuitively know need more education. Maybe they 
have lost a job and now they realize: I have to do something. I have to 
get a better education. These marketers go after them. This is what our 
report found.
  If you look at the enrollment in these schools, as I said, it has 
gone up. The enrollment has gone up. Look at the recruiters. From 2007 
to 2010, we went from a little over 20,000 to 35,202 recruiters at 24 
of these companies.
  Down here, the red line, these are the career services. These are the 
people who counsel and mentor and tutor and help with career guidance. 
It has not gone up a bit. Huge increase in students, big increase in 
recruiters, and almost no increase at all in career counselors. This is 
a failure, an abject failure.
  This report is the first comprehensive fact-based analysis of this 
industry. Earlier today I saw that the association for for-profit 
institutions called this a flawed process. As near as I can understand 
their critique, the process was flawed because it was about them, but 
that is what congressional oversight is about.
  This was not an overnight thing. This is what we produced: four huge 
volumes, data-driven documentation, documentation on what is happening 
in this industry. This is the summary. This holds most of what we 
found. These three will have all of the backup documentation that is 
needed to support the findings we have.
  We have before us a factual record that we have never had before. The 
Department of Education did not have it. No one has had it before. This 
can guide us as we move toward reauthorization of the Higher Education 
Act next year. Again, during the reauthorization we will also be 
looking at traditional higher education.
  We have already held two hearings on college affordability. There is 
no question that we need to find a way to improve outcomes not just at 
for-profit colleges but also at low-cost community colleges. That said, 
the fact is there are problems that are unique--unique to the for-
profit sector that will require some unique solutions.
  We have seen some progress on this front, as I said. I have met with 
some of them. They have expressed a determination to reform and to do 
right by their students. In addition, the Department of Education took 
steps that are beginning to have real impacts.
  In April, President Obama issued an Executive order that will help to 
ensure our veterans are not the subject of deceptive and misleading 
recruiting, and that will help solders and veterans to make better 
decisions about where to use their GI bill dollars.
  Last month, Kentucky Attorney General Jack Conway led a 20-State 
attorney general settlement with QuinStreet, one of the companies 
engaged in some of the most egregiously misleading recruiting efforts 
targeted at veterans. But these are not enough. As I said, there is an 
important role for for-profit colleges in our increasingly knowledge-
based economy.
  A solid record of student success is in the national interest. The 
challenge is to require the companies to be as focused on student 
success as they are on financial success.
  Now, there are four things we need to do.
  First, we need to know how every student enrolled in college is 
doing, not just first-time, full-time students. This is a flaw in our 
system. The Department of Education only tracks first-time, full-time 
students. Most of the students who go to our for-profit schools are not 
first-time, full-time students, they are part-time students. So what we 
need to do is that for any student who gets a Pell grant and/or 
Stafford loan, we need to know how that student is doing and how they 
do later on.
  Second, we need to be very clear that the Federal education money has 
to be spent on education, not advertising, recruiting, or lobbying. 
That is just common sense. I challenge anyone to stand up here and say: 
No, they should use taxpayer dollars to lobby, to advertise, or to pay 
a recruiter. No. We have to be very clear--they can spend it on 
education but not on advertising, recruiting or lobbying.
  Third, we need to make sure these schools are providing at least a 
basic level of student services that would give the at-risk students 
they enroll a fair shot at completing. If there is one thing that 
distinguishes good for-profit schools from the bad ones, this is it: a 
genuine commitment to providing a network of student support--
mentoring, tutoring, employer partnerships, genuine career counseling--
not just in the beginning but all the way through the program. The good 
schools that are doing that are turning out quality products.
  Fourth, we have to think seriously about outcome-based thresholds, 
particularly for colleges that get a very high proportion of their 
revenue from taxpayers. And we need to build on the gainful employment 
rule to ensure that students are not being loaded up with debt they 
cannot repay.
  I am confident the record we are laying out today will make some of 
these reforms inevitable as we move forward. I wish to also thank some 
of my colleagues and to note that work has already begun on 
legislation.
  Senator Hagan is sponsoring a bill to ban the use of Federal 
financial aid dollars for marketing.
  Senators Murray and Webb are sponsoring comprehensive legislation to 
better protect servicemembers and veterans using the post-9/11 GI bill.
  Senator Lautenberg is sponsoring a bill to provide every veteran who 
receives education aid from the Department of Veterans Affairs with 
counseling to help make the right choices and to create a system to 
track veterans' complaints of waste, fraud, and abuse by these for-
profit schools.
  Senators Carper and Durbin are sponsoring bills to address the 
absurdity of not counting all Federal money in the restriction on how 
much money these schools can receive.
  One of the things we picked up on as we started this investigation 
was the tremendous focus these for-profits were now making on veterans, 
especially Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, and Active-Duty personnel. 
The reason for that is because we have a 90-10 rule that says for-
profit schools can only get 90 percent of their money from the Federal 
Government. The other 10 percent has to come from someplace else--
private sources. But that doesn't count military. If a for-profit 
school bumps up on the 90-10 level, it cannot go out and recruit any 
more people, but if it recruits one military person, it can get nine 
more nonmilitary. So that pays for them to go after the military. Well, 
Senators Carper and Durbin have a bill in to stop that.
  Senator Durbin is also a leader on the issue of private student loans 
and bankruptcy, as well as a great partner in helping to draw attention 
to the experiences of students who have attended these schools.
  I also thank other members of the HELP Committee who have been active 
participants at hearings, including Senators Franken, Merkley, and 
Blumenthal.
  I have also received a great deal of support and encouragement along 
the way from organizations dedicated to ensuring that students have a 
genuine path to success in higher education. In particular, I thank the 
Council for Opportunity in Education, the Education Trust, the 
Leadership Council on Civil Rights, the Institute for College Access

[[Page S5635]]

and Success, Campus Progress, and the National Association for College 
Admissions Counseling. All of them have been involved in helping us 
over the last couple of years to get the data we needed.
  On behalf of servicemembers and veterans, we have had tremendous 
assistance from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association, the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Officers Association of America, 
Blue Star Families, the Vietnam Veterans Association, Student Veterans 
of America, the American Legion, VetJobs, VetsFirst, Paralyzed Veterans 
of America, the National Association for Black Veterans, the National 
Guard Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Association 
of the United States Navy, Wounded Warriors, and Veterans for Common 
Sense. All of them have been involved. We have gone to them, and they 
have been so forthcoming and helpful, helping our staff and me to 
understand what is happening.
  I also thank the witnesses at our hearings, several of whom have been 
subjected to unwarranted and undeserved criticism. In particular, I 
thank Steve Eisman, who provided the committee with unique expertise 
and insights about the industry in a way that helped policymakers 
understand that these companies were much more than just colleges. As 
everyone in this body knows, people with a financial stake in an 
industry testify before Congress every day and, like Mr. Eisman, 
provide some of the most insightful and accurate information we 
receive.
  I also thank former Westwood employee Joshua Pruyn, who provided a 
real-world view of working as a for-profit recruiter. He was willing to 
come forward for the sole purpose of shedding light on this industry, 
and the criticism he has sustained speaks poorly of those who claim to 
believe in the valuable role whistleblowers play.
  I thank my staff, who have pursued this investigation tirelessly and 
tenaciously.
  I thank my oversight team and my HELP Committee, who spearheaded the 
investigation, analyzed the numbers, calculated all of the outcomes, 
interviewed students and employees, reviewed thousands of pages of 
documents, and prepared this final report. That oversight team was led 
by Beth Stein. She was assisted throughout six hearings, three previous 
reports, many spreadsheets, charts, and megabytes of documents by 
Elizabeth Baylor and Ryan McCord. More recently, they were joined by 
Kia Hamadanchy and Bryan Boroughs, who have dedicated many long hours 
to the research, writing, and publication of this report.
  I also owe a tremendous thanks to several staffers who are no longer 
with the committee but played a critical role in this investigation: 
Beth Little, Luke Swarthout, and Robin Juliano.

  I also thank my former and current HELP Committee staff directors, 
Dan Smith and Pam Smith, who have ably guided this sometimes 
challenging effort.
  Our communications staffers have patiently explained the 90-10 rule, 
the cohort default rate, and the fact that we don't actually know how 
veterans attending for-profit schools are doing to hundreds of 
reporters throughout the country. I thank Justine Sessions, Kate 
Frischmann, and Liz Donovan.
  I also thank my education policy staffers who joined this effort more 
recently but who will be carrying us forward in our legislative reform 
efforts: Mildred Otero, Spiros Protopsaltis, and Libby Masiuk, as well 
as Carrie Wofford, who has played a tremendous role in outreach to 
groups across the country and has been a particular advocate on behalf 
of veterans impacted by the practices of the for-profit colleges.
  I also thank our tremendous group of law clerks, who dedicated many 
hours to the less glamorous tasks of getting this put together: Abre 
Connor, Joel Murray, Lauren Scott, David Krem, Ashley Waddell, Lindsey 
Daughtry, Zach Mason, Sophie Kasimow, and Brittany Clement.
  A special thank-you goes to the law clerks who helped write and 
prepare the report: Lucy Stein, Nicholas Wunder, Shauna Agean, Keagan 
Buchanan, and Douglas Dorando, and also Andrea Jarcho, who has juggled 
multiple roles and worn multiple hats.
  For their assistance along the way, I also thank Paul Edenfield, 
Madeline Daniels, Alyssa Davis, and also Dan Goldberg for his always-
sound analysis and advice.
  Finally, I thank Denise Lowrey and Carolyn Bolden, on the committee 
staff, who spent many hours making the report as error-free as humanly 
possible.
  Today we bring the HELP Committee investigation of for-profit 
colleges to a close, but the record we have laid out leaves much to be 
done, and I look forward to continuing to work with my Senate 
colleagues to help for-profit colleges realize their potential as a 
genuinely transformative force in higher education.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.


                             Global Warming

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, the Senator from Oklahoma, Jim Inhofe, is 
a friend of mine. While we have strong philosophical and political 
differences, we have had a very positive personal relationship since I 
entered the Senate 5\1/2\ years ago. I like Senator Inhofe, and on 
occasion, despite our political differences, we have been able to work 
together as members of the Environment and Public Works Committee, on 
which we both sit. I especially applaud the Senator for his strong 
efforts on the recently passed Transportation bill in which he led the 
effort in getting his fellow Republicans to move forward on the vitally 
important issue of rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure--in this 
case, roads and bridges.
  Unfortunately, Senator Inhofe has some very radical views regarding 
global warming. I believe he is dead wrong and dangerously wrong on 
this issue. Not only is he wrong, but because he is the leading 
Republican on the Environment Committee, his views hold great influence 
over other Republicans in the Senate, in the House, and across the 
country. Because many Republicans follow Senator Inhofe's lead, it 
means we are making very little progress in Congress in combating what 
most of the scientific community sees is a global environmental crisis.
  I am on the floor today to ask Senator Inhofe to rethink his views on 
this enormously important issue and to ask my Republican colleagues to 
do the same. I am asking them to join the overwhelming majority of 
scientists who have studied and written about this issue in 
understanding that, one, global warming is real; two, global warming is 
significantly caused by human activity; three, global warming is 
already causing massive and costly destruction to the United States and 
around the world, and it will only get worse in years to come.
  I am also asking Senator Inhofe and my Republican colleagues to 
understand that the United States, with all of our knowledge, all of 
our expertise, and all of our technology, can and must lead the rest of 
the world, which must follow our effort in cutting back on carbon 
emissions and reverse global warming, and to understand that when we do 
this--when we transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and 
enter into energy efficiency and sustainable energy--when we do that 
over a period of years, we can create millions of good-paying jobs.
  What I want to do this afternoon is nothing more than to simply quote 
some of the statements and assertions Senator Inhofe has made and to 
express to you why he is dead wrong and dangerously wrong on this 
vitally important issue.
  Mr. President, on July 11--just 2\1/2\ weeks ago--Senator Inhofe 
spoke on this floor reiterating his longstanding views on global 
warming. What he said during that speech is pretty much what he has 
been saying for years. I read that speech, and I want to use this 
opportunity to comment on it. Specifically, I want to discuss a number 
of observations in which Senator Inhofe is completely wrong.

  First and foremost, Senator Inhofe tells us in his speech that global 
warming science is wrong. First and foremost, Senator Inhofe tells us 
in his speech that global warming science is wrong. Mr. Inhofe states, 
on page S4860 of the Congressional Record from July 11--and I will do 
my best to quote him as accurately as I possibly can--the following 
about global warming:

       In 2003 . . . I started hearing from a lot of the real 
     scientists that it was a hoax.

  And Senator Inhofe continued, again from July 11, 2012:

       It is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American 
     people.


[[Page S5636]]


  Let me repeat again what Senator Inhofe said just a few weeks ago on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate.

       [Global warming] . . . is the greatest hoax ever 
     perpetrated on the American people.

  In fact, the title of Senator Inhofe's new book--which he was kind 
enough to give me a copy of--is ``The Greatest Hoax.'' That is the 
title of his book.
  Well, let's examine that assertion on the part of Senator Inhofe. The 
United States Global Change Research Program, which was supported and 
expanded by President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, and 
which includes scientists at NASA, EPA, the Department of Defense, the 
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the State 
Department, the Department of Health, the Departments of 
Transportation, Commerce, and Interior, have said:

       Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.

  Senator Inhofe has said global warming is a hoax, but the Global 
Change Research Program, which brings together many departments of the 
U.S. Government, says:

       Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced.

  Our National Academy of Sciences joined with academies in Brazil, 
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, 
South Africa, and the United Kingdom. They all came together and said:

       The need for urgent action to address climate change is now 
     indisputable.

  It is now indisputable. Senator Inhofe says global warming is a hoax; 
academies of science all over the world state the need for urgent 
action to address climate change is now indisputable.
  Eighteen scientific professional societies, including the American 
Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and others say:

       Climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific 
     research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by 
     human activities are the primary driver.

  That is a quote from 18 scientific professional societies. Senator 
Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, but 18 scientific professional 
societies say climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific 
research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human 
activities are the primary driver.
  Even noted climate skeptic Richard Muller, who, interestingly enough, 
Senator Inhofe has cited in his own speeches over the years, wrote in 
the Wall Street Journal last year that his latest research proved 
``global warming is real.'' More to the point, in an op-ed published 2 
days ago, Richard Muller, who in the past was cited by Senator Inhofe 
as a global warming skeptic, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times 
entitled ``The Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the op-ed I have just referred to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, this is how Richard A. Muller--again, the 
scientist who was often quoted by Senator Inhofe--began his op-ed 2 
days ago in the New York Times. This is the quote from Richard A. 
Muller.

       Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago, I identified 
     problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw 
     doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, 
     following an intensive research effort involving a dozen 
     scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that 
     the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm 
     now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the 
     cause.

  And Dr. Muller continues:

       My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of 
     careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface 
     Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter 
     Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of 
     the earth's land has risen by 2\1/2\ degrees Fahrenheit over 
     the past 250 years, including an increase of 1\1/2\ degrees 
     over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely 
     that essentially all of this increase results from the human 
     emission of greenhouse gases.

  That was Dr. Richard Muller from an op-ed in the New York Times on 
July 28, 2012.
  I am not going to tell you that every single serious scientist in the 
world agrees with Dr. Muller or agrees with me or agrees with the vast 
majority of scientists that global warming is real and primarily caused 
by human activity. But I will say that, according to the National 
Academy of Sciences, approximately 98 percent of active climate 
scientists who published peer-reviewed papers agree with the assertion 
that global warming is occurring and human activity is a significant 
driver of it--not 100 percent but 98 percent.
  When we talk about scientists publishing with peer review, what we 
are saying is their papers and research were reviewed and examined by 
other expert scientists in their field. That is the great thing about 
science and peer review. The process invites criticism and invites 
other scientists to prove your idea is wrong. When we say 98 percent of 
active climate scientists agree about global warming, we are talking 
about scientists whose work has been examined critically and found to 
be well-documented and correct by their peers in the field.
  This is an important point to be made. There may well be scientists 
out there who may have different views. But by and large they have not 
written peer-reviewed literature which has been examined by other 
experts in that field. So the bottom line here--and the important 
bottom line--is when Senator Jim Inhofe says global warming is a hoax, 
he is dead wrong according to the overwhelming majority of scientists 
who have studied this issue.
  I hope very much--and I mean this sincerely, because this is an 
enormously important issue--that Senator Inhofe will rethink his 
position, and those Republicans who have followed Senator Inhofe's lead 
will also rethink their position.
  In July of 2010, in an interview with ABC News, Senator Inhofe said:

       We're in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going 
     into a cooling period.

  Let me repeat that, because I don't want anyone to think I made a 
mistake about what I said. July 2010, ABC News, quoting Senator Inhofe.

       We're in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going 
     into a cooling period.

  On July 11, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Inhofe stated in his 
remarks--and this is found on page S4860 of the Congressional Record. I 
want everyone to make sure I am not misquoting Senator Inhofe. I would 
not do that. From page S4860 of July 11, the Congressional Record:

       . . . we went into a warming period that went up to the 
     turn of the century. Now it is actually going down into a 
     cooling period again . . .

  That was Senator Inhofe, July 11, 2012. In other words, as I 
understand it, Senator Inhofe is saying that since the year 2001 we are 
in a cooling period. Unfortunately, Senator Inhofe's assertion that we 
have entered a cooling period could not be more incorrect.
  Let's look at what the scientific data shows us. The last decade was 
not one where our temperature got cooler. It was, in fact, the very 
opposite. According to NASA, the last decade was in fact the warmest on 
record, using temperature records that date to the late 1800s. NASA's 
data shows that 9 of the 10 warmest years on record occurred since 
2000, when Senator Inhofe says we went into a ``cooling period.'' So 
NASA says the last decade was the warmest on record, but Senator Inhofe 
says we have gone into a cooling period.
  But it is not just NASA making this finding. The National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--issued a report from 300 scientists 
in 48 countries that confirms the last decade was the warmest on 
record--the warmest on record at a time when Senator Inhofe tells us we 
are going into a cooling period.
  The World Meteorological Organization also confirms that the last 
decade was the warmest on record, and they found the 13 warmest years 
on record have all occurred since 1997.
  So the American people and my Republican friends are going to have to 
make a decision: Is Jim Inhofe right that we are entering into a 
cooling period or is NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration correct in saying that the last decade was, in fact, the 
warmest on record?
  As my fellow Vermonter, Bill McKibben, recently pointed out, globally 
we have seen 327 consecutive months where the temperature exceeded the 
global average for the 20th century. Senator Inhofe tells us the world 
is getting cooler, but science shows us we have just experienced the 
warmest

[[Page S5637]]

decade on record. Somebody is right and somebody is wrong, and I do not 
believe Senator Inhofe is right.
  Senator Inhofe stated on July 11, 2012, page S. 4862 of the 
Congressional Record:

       One thing we did find out when we got a report from several 
     universities, including MIT, was that the cost of this, if we 
     were to pass any of the bills, would have been between $300 
     billion and $400 billion a year.

  This is not the first time Senator Inhofe has asserted that the cost 
of cutting greenhouse gas emissions is $300 billion to $400 billion a 
year. In an interview with Fox News on February 11, 2000, Senator 
Inhofe was asked by the Fox anchor about the cost of global warming 
legislation, and he responded:

       It would cost between $300 billion and $400 billion a year.

  Senator Inhofe gets his estimates by looking at worst-case scenarios 
from an out-of-date report that looked at legislation from 2007. The 
truth is, however, more recent research proves we can take strong 
action to cut emissions while at the same time growing our economy and 
saving Americans substantial sums of money on their energy bills.
  For example, a 2009 study from McKinsey consulting firm found that 
the United States can meet our 2020 targets for greenhouse gas emission 
reductions just through cost-effective energy efficiency efforts, with 
a net savings for American consumers of $700 billion. A 2010 report 
from the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy found that by 
doing things nationally, many States--including the State of Vermont, 
my own State--are doing on energy efficiency already, we could achieve 
substantial benefits. The study found by investing aggressively in 
energy efficiency in our buildings, in our schools, in our factories, 
and in our transportation systems we would create over 370,000 net new 
jobs by 2020, boost our rate of economic growth and GDP, and save 
households significant sums of money on their energy bills--all while 
vastly exceeding our 2020 target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions 17 
percent from 2005 levels.
  In this scenario, we could cut emissions over 30 percent by 2020 as 
we create jobs and as millions of people save money on their energy 
bills. To my mind, creating jobs, cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and 
saving money on people's fuel bills is a win-win-win situation.
  In addition to the clear benefits from taking action, I want to point 
out to Senator Inhofe the costs and risks if we do not take action, if 
we do nothing. The alternative is we step back, we don't do anything, 
and what happens?
  Already, the extreme weather we have seen is impacting our Nation's 
infrastructure. An interesting article appeared just a few days ago, 
July 25, 2012, in the New York Times. It said the Nation's 
infrastructure is being taxed to worrisome degrees by heat, drought, 
and vicious storms. The article noted that on a single day in July, an 
airplane got stuck in asphalt that softened due to 100-degree 
temperatures, and a subway train derailed after heat caused a track to 
bend. It also cited highways that are heating up and expanding beyond 
their design limits, causing cracks and jarring bumps in the road. The 
article mentioned how powerplants are having difficulty using their 
regular cooling sources during operation because the water is now 
excessively warm.
  A power company executive with 38 years of experience was quoted as 
saying:

       We've got the storm of the century every year now, after 
     power was knocked out for 4.3 million people in 10 States 
     after the June derecho storm that raced from the Midwest to 
     the East Coast at near hurricane-force winds.

  Interestingly, not generally noted as being terribly progressive, the 
insurance industry has noted their costs for property damage from 
increasingly extreme weather have already increased in the United 
States from $3 billion a year in the 1980s to $20 billion a year today. 
According to Mark Way, an official with Swiss Re, a large reinsurance 
company:

       A warming climate will only add to this trend of increasing 
     losses, which is why action is needed now.

  A landmark study prepared for the British Government by Nicholas 
Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, found that doing 
nothing to reverse global warming could eventually shrink the global 
economy by 20 percent. The Chairman of the National Intelligence 
Council under President George W. Bush testified to Congress that 
intelligence assessments indicated that global warming could worsen 
existing problems, such as poverty, social tensions, environmental 
degradation, ineffectual leadership, and weak political institutions. 
Climate change could threaten domestic stability in some States, 
potentially contributing to conflict, particularly over access to 
increasingly scarce water resources.
  Unlike Senator Inhofe, most Americans are seeing the evidence of 
global warming with their own eyes. I want to take some time to talk 
about what we are seeing.
  The Associated Press reported on July 3, 2012:

       But since at least 1988, climate scientists have warned 
     that climate change would bring, in general, increased heat 
     waves, more droughts, more sudden downpours, more widespread 
     wildfires and worsening storms. In the United States, those 
     extremes are happening here and now.
       So far this year, more than 2.1 million acres have burned 
     in wildfires, more than 113 million people in the U.S. were 
     in areas under extreme heat advisories last Friday, two-
     thirds of the country is experiencing drought, and earlier in 
     June, deluges flooded Minnesota and Florida.

  We saw extreme weather last year as well. In 2011, we had a record-
breaking 14 weather disasters in the United States that each caused 
over $1 billion in damage. One of those was Hurricane Irene, which 
caused devastating flooding and loss of life in the State of Vermont 
and other States in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. According to FEMA:

       Considered together, the federally declared disasters of 
     2011 presented crises all but unprecedented in their 
     frequency and scope. The 99 major disasters, 29 declared 
     emergencies, and 114 requests for fire management assistance 
     touched 48 out of 50 states.

  In other words, 48 States had a federally declared disaster last 
year.
  Global average surface temperature has already increased 1.3 degrees 
Fahrenheit since 1900, according to NOAA. The last 12 months is the 
warmest 12-month period on record in the United States. Since January 
1, 2012, cities and regions in the United States have set 40,000 
records for warm temperatures, compared to just 6,000 for cold 
temperatures, according to NOAA. In the 20th century we set warm and 
cold temperature records at roughly a 1-to-1 ratio. In the 21st 
century, that has changed 2 to 1 in favor of heat records, and this 
year it has jumped to 7 to 1.
  As the planet warms, we are seeing more extreme heat wave events. 
Heat waves killed tens of thousands in Europe in 2003 and Russia in 
2010, and a heat wave in Texas and Oklahoma caused severe drought and 
wildfires in 2011. Global warming made these heat waves significantly 
more likely, according to the latest science.
  Leading climatologist James Hansen and several of his colleagues 
published a report that said:

       Extreme heat waves such as that in Texas and Oklahoma in 
     2011, and Moscow in 2010, were caused by global warming, 
     because their likelihood was negligible prior to the recent 
     rapid global warming.

  Another study from German researchers published in the U.S. National 
Academy of Sciences found an 80-percent likelihood that the Russian 
heat wave in 2010 was attributable to global warming. And a study from 
NOAA found the heat wave and drought in Texas in 2011 was 20 times more 
likely to occur today than 50 years ago due to the warming of the 
planet.
  As I mentioned, this country is currently experiencing a devastating 
drought. The U.S. Department of Agriculture has designated disaster 
areas due to drought in 1,369 counties in 31 States this year. The 
price of corn has increased 50 percent in the last 3 months, and 
soybean prices are up 25 percent since June. This is because 78 percent 
of the corn crop and 77 percent of soybean production is in drought-
affected areas.
  This is not the first time we have seen devastating droughts spike 
food prices in recent years. Severe drought in Russia in 2010 led that 
country to ban exports of grain, which contributed to a near doubling 
in wheat prices over a 2-month period in that year. The worst drought 
in China in 60 years occurred last year in 2011, affecting 12 million 
acres of wheat and contributing--along with floods in Australia

[[Page S5638]]

and the drought in Russia--to record food prices.
  Some commentators cited the record food prices caused by these 
extreme weather events as contributing to unrest. When food prices go 
up, there is often instability in countries around the world--including 
the Middle East and Africa.
  Sea levels have already risen 7 inches globally, according to EPA. We 
have seen during the last three summers record low levels of Arctic Sea 
ice, and we know from NASA satellites that Antarctica is losing 24 
cubic miles of ice every year. In Glacier National Park in this country 
we had 150 glaciers when it was formed in 1910, but today only 25 
remain. Some studies predict a sea level rise of 5 feet or more by the 
end of this century. But even if sea levels rose 3 feet, cities such as 
Miami, New Orleans, Charleston, SC, Oakland, CA, and others could find 
themselves partially underwater.
  The average annual acreage consumed by wildfires in the United States 
more than doubled during the last decade compared with the previous 
four decades. Last year in Texas wildfires destroyed 2,700 homes. This 
year in Colorado--the most destructive wildfire in that State's 
history--destroyed 350 homes. Wildfires in Colorado this year caused 
tens of thousands to evacuate their homes. In New Mexico, we saw the 
largest wildfire in that State's history this year burn more than 
170,000 acres that broke the previous record which was set just last 
year when a fire burned more than 150,000 acres.
  Mr. President, last year floods along the Mississippi River caused $2 
billion worth of damage. Floods in North Dakota displaced 11,000 people 
from their homes. Record floods in Australia in 2011 caused its State 
of Queensland to conduct the largest evacuation in its history. Floods 
in Pakistan in 2010 killed 2,000 people and left one-fifth of that 
nuclear-armed nation under water for weeks. That is the kind of 
potentially destabilizing extreme weather events the folks at the 
Department of Defense and the CIA worry about. Unfortunately, I could 
go on and on. The bad news is if we do nothing, the science is clear 
that temperatures will continue to increase, sea levels will continue 
to rise, and extreme weather will become more frequent and more 
devastating. The good news is--and it is very good news--that we now 
have the technology, the knowledge, and the know-how to cut emissions 
today through energy efficiency and through moving toward such 
sustainable and renewable technologies as solar, wind, geothermal, and 
biomass.
  It is time for Congress to get serious about global warming and to 
work to transform our energy system to sustainable energy, and that 
starts by beginning to understand that global warming is real and that 
if we do not address it now, it will only get worse and bring more 
danger to this country and to our planet.
  Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?
  Mr. SANDERS. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of my friend from Vermont, I be recognized as 
in morning business for such time as I will consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I am glad to see my friend from Oklahoma 
here on the floor. I want to conclude by reading a review of Senator 
Inhofe's book, which is called ``The Greatest Hoax,'' by a gentleman 
named J.C. Moore. This review by J.C. Moore was published in the Tulsa 
World which is, I suspect, the largest newspaper in the State of 
Oklahoma. J.C. Moore is a native Oklahoman--the same State Senator 
Inhofe represents--and a Ph.D. who taught chemistry and physics and is 
a member of the American Geophysical Union.
  This is what Mr. Moore wrote: ``Inhofe claims he is winning in his 
fight to debunk global warming.'' After discussing the scientific 
consensus among climate scientists and major scientific institutions 
all over the world, Moore writes:

       Inhofe's greatest adversary is nature itself, as research 
     shows the climate is changing in response to human 
     activities. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 
     increasing, the temperature of the Earth is rising, the 
     oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and polar ice caps 
     are melting, sea levels are rising, the probability of severe 
     weather events is increasing, and weather-related natural 
     disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. It is 
     time we examine more closely who is actually winning by 
     ignoring science.

  As I understand it, that is from a review of Senator Inhofe's book, 
``The Greatest Hoax,'' by a gentleman named J.C. Moore in the Tulsa 
World.
  There is much more to be said on this issue because here on the floor 
of the Senate we are saying virtually nothing. I might say that we look 
pretty dumb to the rest of the world by ignoring what many scientists 
believe is the major environmental crisis of our time which, if we 
don't get a handle on, will have profound impacts on the well-being of 
this country and countries throughout this world.
  So I say to my friend Senator Inhofe--and he is my friend--I hope 
very much the Senator will rethink his position. I hope those 
Republicans who are following the Senator's lead will rethink their 
position because nothing less than the future of our planet is at 
stake.

                               Exhibit 1

                [From the New York Times, July 28, 2012]

               The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic

                         (By Richard A. Muller)

       Call me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified 
     problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw 
     doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, 
     following an intensive research effort involving a dozen 
     scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that 
     the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I'm 
     now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the 
     cause.
       My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of 
     careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface 
     Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter 
     Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of 
     the earth's land has risen by two and a half degrees 
     Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 
     one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. 
     Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this 
     increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
       These findings are stronger than those of the 
     Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations 
     group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on 
     global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded 
     only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be 
     attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the 
     I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 
     could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even 
     a substantial part of the more recent warming could be 
     natural.
       Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical 
     methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert 
     Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature 
     much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised 
     by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our 
     results using rural data alone), from data selection (prior 
     groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available 
     temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent), from 
     poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations 
     and poor ones) and from human intervention and data 
     adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). 
     In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially 
     troublesome effects unduly biased our conclusions.
       The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt 
     dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic 
     eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect 
     sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth's 
     surface for a few years. There are small, rapid variations 
     attributable to El Nino and other ocean currents such as the 
     Gulf Stream; because of such oscillations, the ``flattening'' 
     of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, 
     in our view, statistically significant. What has caused the 
     gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We 
     tried fitting the shape to simple math functions 
     (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to 
     rising functions like world population. By far the best match 
     was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured 
     from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.
       Just as important, our record is long enough that we could 
     search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the 
     historical record of sunspots. That fingerprint is absent. 
     Although the I.P.C.C. allowed for the possibility that 
     variations in sunlight could have ended the ``Little Ice 
     Age,'' a period of cooling from the 14th century to about 
     1850, our data argues strongly that the temperature rise of 
     the past 250 years cannot be attributed to solar changes. 
     This conclusion is, in retrospect, not too surprising; we've 
     learned from satellite measurements that solar activity 
     changes the brightness of the sun very little.
       How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon 
     dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we've 
     tried. Its

[[Page S5639]]

     magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse 
     effect--fextra warming from trapped heat radiation. These 
     facts don't prove causality and they shouldn't end 
     skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered 
     seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at 
     least as well as carbon dioxide does. Adding methane, a 
     second greenhouse gas, to our analysis doesn't change the 
     results. Moreover, our analysis does not depend on large, 
     complex global climate models, the huge computer programs 
     that are notorious for their hidden assumptions and 
     adjustable parameters. Our result is based simply on the 
     close agreement between the shape of the observed temperature 
     rise and the known greenhouse gas increase.
       It's a scientist's duty to be properly skeptical. I still 
     find that much, if not most, of what is attributed to climate 
     change is speculative, exaggerated or just plain wrong. I've 
     analyzed some of the most alarmist claims, and my skepticism 
     about them hasn't changed.
       Hurricane Katrina cannot be attributed to global warming. 
     The number of hurricanes hitting the United States has been 
     going down, not up; likewise for intense tornadoes. Polar 
     bears aren't dying from receding ice, and the Himalayan 
     glaciers aren't going to melt by 2035. And it's possible that 
     we are currently no warmer than we were a thousand years ago, 
     during the ``Medieval Warm Period'' or ``Medieval Optimum,'' 
     an interval of warm conditions known from historical records 
     and indirect evidence like tree rings. And the recent warm 
     spell in the United States happens to be more than offset by 
     cooling elsewhere in the world, so its link to ``global'' 
     warming is weaker than tenuous.
       The careful analysis by our team is laid out in five 
     scientific papers now online at BerkeleyEarth.org. That site 
     also shows our chart of temperature from 1753 to the present, 
     with its clear fingerprint of volcanoes and carbon dioxide, 
     but containing no component that matches solar activity. Four 
     of our papers have undergone extensive scrutiny by the 
     scientific community, and the newest, a paper with the 
     analysis of the human component, is now posted, along with 
     the data and computer programs used. Such transparency is the 
     heart of the scientific method; if you find our conclusions 
     implausible, tell us of any errors of data or analysis.
       What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions 
     increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect 
     the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one 
     and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if 
     the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid 
     economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the 
     last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds 
     one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could 
     take place in less than 20 years.
       Science is that narrow realm of knowledge that, in 
     principle, is universally accepted. I embarked on this 
     analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been 
     answered. I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help 
     settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its 
     human causes. Then comes the difficult part: agreeing across 
     the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and 
     should be done.

  With that, I am happy to yield the floor for my friend, Senator 
Inhofe of Oklahoma.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, something my friend from 
Vermont said a minute ago would surprise a lot of people, and that is 
we are friends. It is kind of strange. People don't understand being 
violently opposed to each other in this body and yet also being very 
close friends. My friend from Vermont has a different philosophy than I 
do. That is the nice thing about both the House and the Senate. We have 
people with different philosophies who believe in different things. 
Somewhere in the midst of this, the truth ultimately does come out most 
of the time. I think we would probably agree with that.
  One thing I like about my friend from Vermont is he really believes 
and is willing to stand up and fight for something he believes. I am 
not going to suggest there are hypocrites in this body. I wouldn't say 
that at all. When we look around the political scene, we see people who 
somehow might ingratiate a block of people who are wanting support. 
Maybe it is for the next election, maybe it is for a cause. That is not 
the case with my friend from Vermont. He believes in his heart 
everything he says.
  Sometimes I talk to young people who come in as interns. I tell them 
there are varied philosophies in the Senate and in the House. We have 
extreme liberals who believe our country should have a greater 
involvement in the decisions we make. We have conservatives, like I am, 
who believe we have too much government in our lives as it is. It is a 
basic difference. But I say to them, even though I am on the 
conservative side, I would rather someone be a far outspoken liberal 
extremist than be in the mushy middle and not stand for anything. My 
friend from Vermont is not in the mushy middle. He stands for 
something.
  It was not too long ago that another friend in his office, his press 
secretary--we are very close friends--said something, and I don't want 
to misquote him. He said, My boss would like to have a copy of your 
book. I said, Not only will I give him a copy, but I will autograph it 
for him, but with one commitment, and that is he has to read it. He 
kept that commitment; I can tell by the things he said.
  Let me go over a few things that were said, and I think it is 
interesting. This Dr. Richard Muller--I can't recall too much about 
him, but I do know he was listed among scientists who were skeptics. 
For the benefit of people who may not know the terminology, I refer to 
an alarmist as someone who thinks there is great alarm because 
something is happening and the end of the world is coming because of 
global warming. Skeptics are those like myself who don't believe that. 
He apparently has changed from being a skeptic to an alarmist. I would 
only say this, and that is my Web site, epw.senate.gov, shows from 
probably over 12 years ago a list of scientists who are calling me, 
making statements, and saying that the IPCC--that is the United 
Nations, and that is what we are talking about. The United Nations came 
out with a preconceived notion that they wanted to believe a 
preconceived conclusion. When they did this, the scientists who were 
included in the process were scientists who agreed with them.
  So when I questioned it by standing on the floor--I don't remember 
the date of this. My friend from Vermont may remember that. I made 
statements about two or three scientists who had called me. After that, 
the phone was ringing off the hook. Keep in mind there are a lot of 
scientists out there. We listed on the Web site up to over 1,000 
scientists who declared they were skeptics about this whole thing. So I 
can take some gratitude about the fact that the only scientist who was 
on the skeptic list who has changed to an alarmist is 1 out of 1,000.
  My friend was talking about the National Academy of Sciences. I think 
it is kind of interesting because let's remember it was the National 
Academy of Sciences that came out with a report in 1975 warning of a 
coming ice age. Keep in mind we are all going to die whether it is 
global warming or another ice age. That is the National Academy of 
Sciences, the same group. According to a lot of people, they have 
turned themselves into an advocacy group.
  I will quote MIT's Dr. Richard Lindzen, who was a former U.N. IPCC 
reviewer. He was talking about Ralph Cicerone, who is the president of 
the NAS. He said:

       Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the 
     answer is predetermined, if gov't wants carbon control, that 
     is the answer--

  That is what the NAS will provide. If you control carbon, you control 
life.
  So we have had a lot of differing and varying interpretations of 
availing science over the years. I can recall one of my first 
introductions to this. Of course, this came way back during the Kyoto 
Convention. Some people have forgotten that Kyoto was a convention that 
was going to get everyone to get together under the leadership of the 
United Nations and we were all going to reduce our carbon, and so they 
had this big meeting down there. I will always remember it. This is the 
famous Al Gore meeting that was called the Earth Summit of 1992. So 
they came out with this and said this is going to happen. The United 
Nations said it is, and so they thought everything was fine. Everyone 
believed it.
  It was shortly after that I remember hearing someone talk about it. 
We can go back and look at this. This is not something I am just 
saying. There were statements that were made in the 30-year period--
let's take the 30-year period from 1895 to 1925. That is 30 years. 
During that time everyone feared that another ice age was coming. They 
talked about another ice age, and that the world was coming to an end. 
They provided all of this documentation during that 30-year period that 
that is what was happening.
  Well, from 1925 to 1945, that 20-year period was a global warming. In 
fact,

[[Page S5640]]

the first time we heard of global warming was in that 20-year period 
from 1925 to 1945. So the world was going to come to an end again, and 
it was going to be during that period of time due to global warming.
  Then came the 30-year period from 1945 to 1975. During that time they 
said it is a cold spell, and that is when all of these companies came 
in--the Senator from Vermont is right. I have given probably 30 talks 
well in excess of an hour each talking about these things. During that 
time, I remember holding up the cover of Time magazine where they 
talked about how another ice age was coming. Then I held up a cover of 
the Time magazine 20 years later, and they said, no, it is global 
warming. They had the last polar bear stepping on the last cube of ice, 
and saying we are going to die.
  We went through a period of 1945 to 1975 where they declared it a 
period of another ice age. Then 1975 to the turn of the century--so 
that was another 30-year period of time--when it was global warming. So 
we have gone back and forth.
  Here is the interesting thing about that. The assertion is always 
made that we are having catastrophic global warming because of manmade 
gases, CO2, anthropogenic gases, and methane. Yet the 
greatest surge of CO2 came right after World War II starting 
in 1945, and that precipitated not a warming period but a cooling 
period. So when you look at these things, sometimes--by the way, the 
only disagreement I would have with my friend from Vermont is that he 
has quoted me as saying some things.
  Actually, unlike Al Gore and some of these other people, I recognize 
I am not an expert. I am not a scientist, but I read what the 
scientists say. I get my phone calls, I look at it, and I try to apply 
logic to it and come to my conclusions. So that is what has been 
happening over the last--oh, it has been now 12 years, I guess, since 
all this started.

  I wish to mention a couple of other things that were said. For 
example, on the idea of the science--here it is, right here. As far as 
scientists are concerned, I can remember quoting from the Harvard-
Smithsonian study. The study examined results of more than 240 peer-
reviewed--``peer-reviewed'' is the term used by my friend from 
Vermont--the Harvard-Smithsonian study examined the results of more 
than 240 peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of researchers 
over the past four decades. The study covers a multitude of geophysical 
and biological climate indicators. They came to the conclusion that 
``climate change is not real. The science is not accurate.''
  Then we have another quote from a former President of the National 
Academy of Sciences. He is Dr. Fred Seitz. He said:

       There is no convincing scientific evidence that human 
     release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases 
     is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause 
     catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption 
     of the Earth's climate.

  Again, he is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences.
  Then we had a study from not long ago done by George Mason 
University. This is one my friend from Vermont may not have seen. It 
was called to my attention, and I missed it somehow in the media. It 
was a survey of 430 weather forecasters by the university, and it found 
that only 19 percent of the weather forecasters believed that the 
climate is changing and if so, that it is due to manmade gases--only 19 
percent. That means 81 percent of them think it is not.
  Dr. Robert Laughlin is a Nobel Prize winner and a Stanford University 
physicist. He said--this is kind of good. I enjoyed this one. He said:

       Please remain calm: The earth will heal itself. Climate is 
     beyond our power to control. The earth doesn't care about 
     governments or their legislation. Climate change is a matter 
     of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on 
     its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining 
     itself.

  It is happening. I think it is kind of arrogant for people to think 
we can change this. I am recalling one of the statements made by my 
good friend that we have all of these--we must provide the leadership.
  We have watched these great big annual parties the United Nations has 
in these exotic places around the world. I can remember going to a few 
of them. I remember one of them in Milan, Italy. It would have been 
2003. I went there. They had ``wanted'' posters on all the telephone 
polls with my picture and quoted me when I first came out with the hoax 
statement. These big parties are kind of interesting. I have only gone 
to three of them, but they have people invited from all over the world. 
The only price to pay to come to this is to believe that catastrophic 
warming is taking place and that it is the fault of bad old man and 
anthropogenic gases.
  Anyway, the last one was an interesting one--not the last one, the 
most enjoyable one in Copenhagen. At that time--I am going from memory, 
but I believe President Obama had been there, Secretary Clinton had 
been there, Nancy Pelosi had been there, and several others. There were 
five different people--I can't remember the other two--and they were 
there to assure the other countries--keep in mind, 192 countries--they 
assured them that we were going to pass some type of cap-and-trade 
legislation. So I went. Right before I went over, I announced myself as 
a self-described--I don't mean it in an arrogant way--as a self-
proclaimed, one-man truth squad. I went over to tell them the truth, 
that it wasn't going to happen.
  But right before it happened--talk about poetic justice, I say to my 
friend from Vermont--right before that happened was a hearing we had 
with the director of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, whom I love dearly. She is 
one of my three favorite liberals whom I often talk about, and she came 
out and said--I looked at her and I said: I am going to Copenhagen 
tomorrow. I have a feeling that when I leave to go to Copenhagen, you 
are going to have a declaration that will declare that it is a hazard 
and all this and give the bureaucracy justification to do through 
regulation what they could not do and have not been successful in doing 
through legislation.
  I saw a smile on her face.
  I said: In the event you make that finding, it has to be based on 
science. What science do you think it will be based on?
  She said: Well, primarily the IPCC--the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change.
  It is a branch of the United Nations. It was all started by the 
United Nations.
  By the way, I would not mention my book; however, I checked before I 
came down, and if somebody else mentions my book, which is ``The 
Greatest Hoax,'' then it is all right for me to mention it. I see my 
friend from Vermont nodding in agreement. So I want people to read the 
longest chapter, which is the chapter on the United Nations. It goes 
back and tells what the motives were for this. It goes back to 1972. We 
were in the midst of an ice age at that time, if my colleague 
remembers. It talks about the meeting that was going to be held at the 
Earth Summit in 1992, what the motivation was, and then it goes forward 
from there.
  Here is what is interesting. I was going to mention this in a hearing 
we will both be attending tomorrow. They had the Earth Summit Plus 20 
just a month ago in Rio de Janeiro, the same place it was held 20 years 
before that when George Bush was President of the United States. He 
went down there even though he didn't really agree with the stuff that 
was going on. In this case, President Obama didn't even go down. In 
fact, it has been conspicuous.
  I was glad to see my friend from Vermont coming to the floor and 
talking about an issue that hasn't been talked about now for years. I 
am glad it is coming up again. I am glad people realize the cost it is 
going to be to the American people. By the way, the $300 billion to 
$400 billion originated from a study that was done by scientists--I am 
sorry--by economists from the Wharton School, and they came up with 
that figure. Later on, MIT and several universities said: Well, that is 
the $300 billion to $400 billion, what it will cost. So that has been 
pretty much agreed to. Yet I am sure there is a dissenting view. But 
this is the first time I have heard on the floor of this Senate a 
denial of that assertion that was made. Everyone knows what it will 
cost.
  I remember the McCain-Lieberman bill when Senator Lieberman said: 
Yes, it will cost billions of dollars. There is

[[Page S5641]]

no question about it. Cap and trade will cost billions of dollars. The 
question is, What do we gain from it?
  Well, that is a pretty good question.
  Getting back to Lisa Jackson, I asked the question--this was in a 
live hearing. I think the Senator from Vermont may have been there; I 
don't know for sure. It was live on TV.
  I said: The assertion has been made that global warming is--that if 
we pass something, we are going to be able to stop this horrible thing 
that is going on right now. Let me ask you for the record, live on TV, 
in a committee hearing, if we were to pass the cap-and-trade bill--I 
think it was the Markey bill at that time; I am not sure. Cap and trade 
is cap and trade--pretty much the same. If we were to pass that, would 
that lower worldwide emissions of CO2?
  She said: No, it wouldn't.
  Wait a minute. This is the Obama-appointed director of the 
Environmental Protection Agency who said: No, it wouldn't, because the 
problem isn't here. The problem is in other countries.
  I don't remember what countries she named--probably China, India, 
Mexico. It could be other countries; I am not sure. But nonetheless, 
she said: No, it really wouldn't do that.
  So what we are talking about is this tax on the American people of 
$300 billion to $400 billion. I remember--and I think the Senator from 
Vermont remembers this also--way back in 1993, during the first of the 
Clinton-Gore administration, they had the Clinton-Gore tax increase of 
1993. That was an increase of marginal rates, the death tax, capital 
gains, and I believe it was the largest tax increase in three decades 
at that time. That was a $32 billion tax increase. This would be a tax 
increase ten times that rate.
  I know there are people--their heads swim when they hear these 
numbers. It doesn't mean anything to them. I will tell my colleagues 
what I do. In Oklahoma, I get the number of families who file a tax 
return, and then I do the math every time somebody comes up. In the 
case of that increase, of the $300 billion to $400 billion, we are 
talking about a $3,000 tax increase for each family in my State of 
Oklahoma that files a tax return. So, fine, if they want to do that, 
they can try to do it, but let's not say something good will come from 
it when the director of the EPA herself said no, it is not going to 
reduce emissions.
  The other thing too that my friend from Vermont mentioned was the 
heat. Yes, it is hot. In fact, it was kind of funny--during the remarks 
of my friend from Vermont, my wife called me from Oklahoma and said: Do 
you think I should call in and say today it is 109 degrees?
  I said: No, it wouldn't be a good idea. Let me say it.
  So it is true. Now and then we have some very hot summers, and in the 
case of my State of Oklahoma, it is hot almost every summer. We have 
had a lot of heat. However, the people who try to say there is proof 
that global warming is taking place are the same ones who--back when we 
had the most severe winter 2 years ago, when my kids built the famous 
igloo, that was one of the most severe winters. In fact, all the 
airports were closed at that time. It was kind of funny. I have 20 kids 
and grandkids. One family is headed up by Jimmy and Molly Rapert. She 
is a professor at the University of Arkansas. She has a little girl we 
helped find in Ethiopia many years ago. Zagita Marie was just a few 
days old when we found her and not in very good shape. We nursed her 
back to health. Molly and her husband, who have three boys, decided 
they wanted a girl, and they adopted her. She is now 12 years old. She 
reads at college level. Every year I have the Africa dinner in 
February, and she has been the keynote speaker at that.
  Anyway, 2 years ago in February, she had given her keynote speech and 
they were getting ready to leave and go back home, but they couldn't 
get out because all the airports were closed. What do you do with a 
family of six? You go out and build an igloo. This wasn't just an igloo 
the kids built; it slept four people, right next to the Library of 
Congress, and on top of it they had a little sign saying ``Al Gore's 
New Home.''
  Anyway, they were talking about that single weather event at that 
time--or some were; not me; I know better than to do that--saying 
global warming can't take place because we have had the most severe 
winters. Anyway, a lot of people have tried to use--and I don't blame 
them for doing it--the idea that, oh, it is really hot out there; 
therefore, this must be global warming.
  I would suggest that--oh, yeah, the one weather event. Roger Pielke, 
Jr., professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, 
said:

       Over the long run, there is no evidence that disasters are 
     getting worse because of climate change.

  Judith Curry, chair of the Georgia Institute of Technology School of 
Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, said:

       I have been completely unconvinced by any of the arguments 
     that attribute a single extreme weather event or a cluster of 
     extreme weather events or statistics of extreme weather 
     events to an anthropogenic forcing.

  Myles Allen, the head of the Climate Dynamics Group at the University 
of Oxford's Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics Department, 
said:

       When Al Gore said that scientists now have clear proof that 
     climate change is directly responsible for the extreme and 
     devastating floods, storms and droughts, my heart sank.

  The other day, I was on the ``Rachel Maddow Show.'' I watch Rachel 
Maddow. She is one of my three favorite--let me just declare today that 
I have four favorite liberals, and the Senator from Vermont is one of 
them. He just graduated to that today, I say to my friend from Vermont.
  Anyway, I have been on her show before--and I always like doing it 
because they are on the other side of these issues--but her own guy, 
called Bill Nye the Science Guy, agrees, one, it is wrong to try to 
attribute climate to a weather event. There is a big difference between 
weather and climate. So we have an awful lot of people who are talking 
about that.
  My good friend from Vermont talked about the global cooling 
predictions. Let me correct him in saying that I did not say that. I 
said that quoting scientists. I try to do that because I do not want 
anyone to think I know that much about science because I do not.
  A prominent Russian scientist, Dr. Abdussamatov, said:

       We should fear a deep temperature drop--not catastrophic 
     global warming. . . .
       It follows that [global] warming had a natural origin, the 
     contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant. . . .

  This second thing: ``UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth!'' This 
is the IPCC. This is the United Nations, the same people who, in my 
opinion--I do say this--are trying to profit from this issue. When I 
say that, let me clarify that because when the United Nations comes up 
with something that is not in the best interests of this country--I 
have often said we ought to correct this. I have written letters, 
signed by Members of this Senate, and before that by Members of the 
House when I was in the House, saying: You guys are going to have to 
come to the meeting and talk about this because it is going to be a 
serious problem.
  When you talk about all these things that are going on, it is 
something that is not actually taking place.
  So they said--and I am quoting now. This would be palaeoclimate 
scientist Dr. Bob Carter from James Cook University in Australia, who 
has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on EPW. I was there at 
that testimony. He noted on June 18, 2007: The accepted global average 
temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. 
Oddly, this is 8-year long temperature stability that occurred, despite 
an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million of atmospheric 
CO2.
  So, again, these are scientists. I know there are scientists with 
varying views, but there sure are a lot of them here.
  Just months before the Copenhagen matter took place--by the way, I 
kind of enjoyed that trip to Copenhagen because when I got over there--
this, again, was the meeting where they invite all the people who 
believe in global warming and make all these countries--192 countries--
believe if they will go along with this, they will get great rewards 
for doing something about global warming. So, anyway, I enjoyed that 
very much because I was

[[Page S5642]]

able to go over and show the people what the truth was in this country.
  But Andrew Revkin, just before Copenhagen, on September 23, 2009, in 
the New York Times, acknowledged:

       The world leaders who met at the United Nations to discuss 
     climate change . . . are faced with an intricate challenge: 
     building momentum for an international climate treaty at a 
     time when global temperatures have been relatively stable for 
     a decade and may even drop for the next few years.

  I look at some of the things--incidentally, I kind of wish I had 
known my good friend from Vermont was going to be talking about this 
because I would have been delighted to join in and get a little bit 
better prepared. But I would say this as to the cost: When you talk 
about where this cost comes from, the $300 to $400 billion, the Kyoto 
Protocol and cap-and-trade cost--this is from the Wharton Econometrics 
Forecasting Associates I mentioned just a minute ago--Kyoto would cost 
2.4 million U.S. jobs and reduce GDP by 3.2 percent or about $300 
billion annually, an amount greater than the total expenditure on 
primary and secondary education.
  Oh, yes, let's talk about polar bears. I am not sure my friend 
mentioned the polar bears, so I will skip that part. Anyway, let me 
just say this: It has become something that has been somewhat of a 
religion to talk about what is happening and the world is coming to an 
end. I would just suggest they are not winning that battle.
  In March 2010, in a Gallup poll, Americans ranked global warming dead 
last--8 out of 8--on environmental issues. That was not true 10 years 
ago. Ten years ago, it was No. 1, and everyone thought that. The more 
people sit back and look at it and study it, they decide: Well, maybe 
it is not true after all.
  In March 2010, a Rasmussen poll: 72 percent of American voters do not 
believe global warming is a very serious problem. In a Rasmussen poll 
at the same time as to the Democrat base: Only 35 percent now think 
climate change is manmade.
  The global warmist Robert Socolow laments:

       We are losing the argument with the general public, big 
     time . . . I think the climate change activists, myself 
     included, have lost the American middle.

  In a way, I am kind of pleased it is coming back up and surfacing 
now. I thank my good friend, and he is my good friend. People do not 
understand--they really do not understand--what the Senate is all 
about. The House was not that way when I was in the House. But in the 
Senate, you can love someone and disagree with them philosophically and 
come out and talk about it.
  I have no doubt in my mind that my friend from Vermont is sincere in 
what he believes. I believe he would say he knows I am sincere with 
what I believe. That is what makes this a great body.
  But I will just say this: It is popular to say the world is coming to 
an end. When we look historically, I could go back and talk about what 
has happened over the years--over the centuries really--and going 
through these periods of time, and it is always that the world is 
coming to an end.
  Well, I am here to announce--and I feel very good being able to do it 
with 20 kids and grandkids; I am happy to tell them all right now--the 
world is not coming to an end, and global warming--we are going through 
a cycle. We have gone through these cycles before, and every time we go 
through--in part of my book I talk about the hysterical things people 
are saying.
  Back during that period of time, I mentioned between 1895 and 1930 
about how the world was coming to an end, and the same thing from 1930 
to the end of the war. Then, of course, getting into the little ice 
age, all these things that were taking place, the little ice age from 
1945--not the ice age but this cooling period--the cooling period that 
started in 1945 and lasted for 30 years was the time in our history 
where we had the greatest increase in carbon in the air, the greatest 
use of that. So it is inconsistent with what reality was.
  So I would say to my good friend, I have no doubt in my mind that the 
Senator from Vermont is sincere in what he says. While he and I are 
ranked at the extreme sides of the philosophical pendulum, I would say 
I know he is sincere. But I will also say this is a tough world we are 
in right now. When we look at the problems we have in this country and 
the problems we are having in the world and the cost that it has, I am 
very thankful those who are trying to pass the cap and trade, all the 
way from the Kyoto Treaty--which was never brought to the Senate, never 
brought because they knew they were not going to be able to pass it--up 
until the time when that ended in about 2009, I would say a lot of 
activists were out there, but I think people have now realized: Just 
look at the patterns. It gets colder, it gets warmer, it gets colder, 
it gets warmer. God is still up there. And I think that will continue 
in the future.
  I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I have talked for a long time on this 
issue, so I do not want to make a great speech and continue speaking at 
great length. I do want to say a few things.
  First of all, I want to thank Senator Inhofe for his kind words. Let 
me respond in the same way. He and I philosophically and politically 
come from very different places. I have never doubted for one moment 
the honesty or the sincerity of the Senator from Oklahoma. He is saying 
what he believes. He has the courage to get up here and say it, and I 
appreciate that. So we are good friends, and I hope we will continue to 
be good friends.
  I think, frankly, it does this Senate, and it does this country, good 
when people hear varied differences of opinion on an issue that I 
consider to be of enormous consequence. So what I would say to my 
friend is, I hope, in fact, this is the beginning of a resurgence of 
discussion about this issue, and I look forward to engaging in the 
discussion with my friend from Oklahoma.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Webb). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________`